It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Face on Mars is just a Rocky Mountain [New High Resolution Pictures]

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Excuse me, I'm a n00b and apparently I need to really work on my textual tone. It appears that I'm having an exceptional difficult time of portraying my humor (well, genius actually) through a keyboard. Should you read through the entirety of this thread, you will see numerous attempts at informing me that Phil Plait did not, in fact, think that NASA is doctoring photos (go, figure).

Please allow me to clarify my intent: The post and link were an extremely unsuccessful attempt to parody the point I was trying to make (through the posting of a parody - get it? haha). Surprisingly enough, I was aware of the satirical nature of the article. My post was an attempt of making a point to question your sources and never except ANY photographed images as empirical data.

However, you are welcome for the laughs at me and not with me :-(




posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
forget the face. we need to check that area out for frozen liquid water. half of the mountain is covered in snow it looks like. and the blueish stuff could be ice. I didnt realize cydonia was in a region that had ice or frozen gas or whatever



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Nunya13.....


Wondering about your saying Hoagland's claims of geometrics is "silly". I have seen the photos of Cydonia and the geometric overlay of the area. To me, it seemed legit. Using the center of the formations to the center of surrounding formations and so on; there is apparently obvious geometry.


Here you go.....have a look at this.....


Hoagland Cyclonia Pyramid Maths Analysis By Professor Ralph Greenburg, Dept of Mathematics, University of Washington

Hoagland Cyclonia Mounds Maths Analysis By Professor Ralph Greenburg, Dept of Mathematics, University of Washington

Hoagland Cyclonia Maths Analysis by Phil Plait

Homepage of Professor Ralph Greenburg Dept of Mathematics, University of Washington


I am not saying I'm right and you're wrong. By any means. I am asking if you could explain the flaws in what I saw. I don't have as critical a mind as I would like to have so it is possible that I was "taken in" by such a thing given he probably relies on people that can't analyze as necessary to believe his claims.


Hoagland is extremely convincing.....like I said, he’s a great “talker”.

It’s awful how hoaxers & con artists like Hoagland try to con people like you & me into believing these sorts of things.


I hope this isn't comeing across as a "calling you out" response.


Hey.....no worries!



I HONESTLY want to know if there is something I missed


Oh no! Now you’re starting to sound like me!


because it's something that pops up in my mind when I think about whether there REALLY is life out there.


As it used to do with me & as I guess it still does with many.....


I do believe it, but I still wonder if I'm wrong sometimes


As do I!


I think, "well what about Cydonia? That certainly seems to indicate there is life out there".


And.....

It’s by conning & hoaxing people such as you & me that Hoagland does his damage & loses the respect of me & many others.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 30-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


Misinformational.....

Don't worry.....weedwhacker can confirm I've PWNED myself on here on more than one occasion!


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


Yes....sorry, I did think that was a possibility.

I ALSO failed to convey properly, as this medium is limiting, and sometimes leads to gross misunderstandings.

Evidenced (I think?? ) even Phil Plait's attempt at 'humor' backfired a bit.

I'm reminded of.... a comedian on his death bed (forget who) was asked about his ordeal, as death neared'

"Dying? ....that's easy. Comedy? Now, that's hard!"





[edit on 30 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Well with the new Adobe CS5 program it will make it harder for people to even tell when a photo has been edited. I dont know if you have seen what it does now, but it's a little crazy and makes it easier to make your own photo into whatever you want and you wont be able to tell..so these pics, well I dont believe them personally. I have my own thoughts on that area of Mars and they are out there but I have read enough to come to that conclusion.


I'm not sure Adobe CS5 will make this much worse ... Really the 'new' tools are combining different scripts to make an effect. Most of the meat of the program has been there for quite some time although a lot of the layering changes have been very useful over the years. However, it wouldn't radically change a work flow such as NASAS which would be more designed to use existing tools to mimick exact photo grain etc ...

If anything it will allow for more amateur hoaxes, but the one thing about using well known algorithms within a program is it makes these algorithms more easy to identify and reverse engineer. Unfortunately for the lay person or investigator it's going to result in more piles of stuff to sift through to get to the good bits.

As for this particular one ... I don't know. There are examples of trick photography everywhere. Odd reflections and formations and such and the human eye is so good at making a pattern out of things by accident. With a lot of photos taken the human eye would see something that isn't there eventually.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by cllj7
 


I just dont buy it...how do you go from
this



to this?



I have been calling BS on this a long time, and will continue to do so.
The better the tech, the worse the pics become according to me

[edit on 30-7-2010 by GerhardSA]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Happy to see that I'm in good company - Well maybe or maybe not?

(Better, yes?)

[EDIT] Grammar stuff

[edit on 30-7-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Doesn't even look like the same area that had the face image. The last image I saw edited of the face was horrible.

Hide the evidence of the face, then distract us and tell us there is water there. Oooooo, perhaps there is water there and microbial life forms.

Life outside this planet is only little microbial life forms. And we are the only special planet where things evolved with arms and legs. lol



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I don't see a face, why are we talking about a face. If you want to see a face go look in the mirror, take a picture of it, and post new face discovered on Earth and tell everyone you're an alien.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I don't know. It looks pretty much like the same place to me. As for NASA manipulating photos, well, if they were going to hide something, they'd probably do a better job of it.




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by misinformational
Now, take a look at the top left portion of this post - Notice the member name? Perhaps a person with such a username is prone to satirical or otherwise humourous post intended to incite independent critical thinking...

Make more sense now?
No I don't follow what you're trying to say. What the post says is:

BABloggee parkylondon alerted me to this NASA image of the Space Shuttle Atlantis’s cockpit, taken in March 2000 during mission STS-101. He sent me a note via Twitter telling me how much he liked it, but as soon as I saw it I smelled a rat. A SPACE SHUTTLE-sized rat.
So all he says is parkylondon liked it. Why would that make you say "Perhaps a person with such a username is prone to satirical or otherwise humourous post"? If you're referring to parkeelondon, I don't see how you get "prone to satirical post" from "he liked it"?


Regarding the face on Mars, I've always thought the original picture is really cool. But as the later images show, things look different from different angles and with different lighting conditions, not to mention different resolutions. And it's not too surprising we all have a case of pareidolia with the original "face on Mars" image.Too bad it didn't turn out to be what it originally looked like, I've even heard some NASA guy say that.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Why just a crop and not the whole thing, High Res??



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Uh, say what? I'm talking about my username. Come on Arbitrageur, you're better than that!



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 


I agree with most of what you said here, looks like a few of the others are arguing points that neither will give up.

One think I have learned in my (more than most in here) years is one thing, Government WILL NEVER give up anything with out a reason (NASA is government even if you don't believe it), for most think of terms in a closer circle of experience because they act the same, and that is corporations, being relatively high up in several, they too WILL NEVER give anything without a reason, both cases I mean information.

As for if the face is in fact a face, I think it could be a structure or statue ???? who knows I sure will never see it first hand but maybe my kids will. it is what it is, but when you are to be found lying once to me the smart thing to do is suspect EVERYTHING you say to me.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by cllj7
 

Do they really think people are going to buy this?? A little photo shopping and call it High Resolution. With NASA's history of blurring photos that we've all seen here on ATS I don't buy this one either.

Ok, then check this super hi-res image of that so called 'face' taken by MOC. Beware, it's 5.5 megs! So be patient whilst it downloads.

And that's proof enough that there's no face out there.

Just a small hillock! Here it is....






posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Totalstranger
forget the face. we need to check that area out for frozen liquid water. half of the mountain is covered in snow it looks like. and the blueish stuff could be ice. I didnt realize cydonia was in a region that had ice or frozen gas or whatever


These HiRISE images are 'False color' which means that the color you see in these images is not the "true" color human eyes would see on Mars. This is because the HiRISE camera views Mars in a different part of the spectrum than human eyes do. However, false color imagery is extremely valuable because it illuminates the distinction between different materials and textures.

So what you're seeing as blue isn't actually blue! So no water here!



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 




Hoagland BS City


LOL. I don't buy anything he says. I like listening to him and Art Bell gladhand each other sometimes.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marrr
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Hoagland BS City

LOL. I don't buy anything he says. I like listening to him and Art Bell gladhand each other sometimes.


Marrr.....

I had a look for a picture of the two of them together & I found something worse.....

A picture of Jaime Maussan & Jonathan Reed!

I've seered my own eyeballs out with a hot wire in case I accidentally look at it again!


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate
Here is the old black and white image:


Here is the black and white version from the website noted in the OP of the new image:


Where are all the peppered impact areas that are all over the area including on the face itself that are so prevalent in the earlier photo?

The only way it would have weathered that quickly is if there is water flowing on Mars or it was sand blasted. This is not the same area, or it is a very obviously manipulated photo.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by webpirate]

Yes they have doctored the photo before.There is more to it than what NASA say.



Even this guy is like WTF?







 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join